Stop it with the Beiber stuff. Stop all of it. No more articles, no more pictures, don't mention him ever again. Then maybe he'll fade away entirely to never return like Queen Mab did at the end of Merlin.

I'm a reasonably good chess player. At least I thought so. See... I play simply by looking at the board and deciding what to do next. I know nothing of any "gambits", or "opening moves", etc...

So, one day many years ago, I'm hanging out with these guys that love to play speed chess (timed, to the rest of us). These guys literally had the first 5 moves completely solved. As a result, no matter what I did, they already had the perfect counter move. It never even got to a point in a game where they needed to even think about the current state of the board. They already knew the next move.

It was very frustrating. It made me not play chess again for many years.

If you're playing like that, you are not even playing. You're just replaying stuff from memory.

durbnpoisn:If you're playing like that, you are not even playing. You're just replaying stuff from memory.

That...doesn't even make sense.

You're upset that you can't plan a few moves ahead. That's not your fault. But it is something that most chess players learn to do. My uncle can plan upwards of 15 moves ahead (which is paltry compared to other guys). It took me years to finally beat him because I had to learn to think a similar way.

That's how you play chess. It's not just random moves and hoping for the best. If you don't have a strategy, you're going to get your ass kicked by anyone who does.

durbnpoisn:I'm a reasonably good chess player. At least I thought so. See... I play simply by looking at the board and deciding what to do next. I know nothing of any "gambits", or "opening moves", etc...

So, one day many years ago, I'm hanging out with these guys that love to play speed chess (timed, to the rest of us). These guys literally had the first 5 moves completely solved. As a result, no matter what I did, they already had the perfect counter move. It never even got to a point in a game where they needed to even think about the current state of the board. They already knew the next move.

It was very frustrating. It made me not play chess again for many years.

If you're playing like that, you are not even playing. You're just replaying stuff from memory.

Clearly you had no idea what you were doing. The fact that you thought you were pretty good at something you obviously know nothing about is pretty strange. I would guess that if they didn't have to think, it's not because they were playing from memory, but because you were fumbling around like a simpleton.

I don't want to hurt your ego, but if you don't know anything about something, you're probably terrible at it.

scottydoesntknow:durbnpoisn: If you're playing like that, you are not even playing. You're just replaying stuff from memory.

That...doesn't even make sense.

You're upset that you can't plan a few moves ahead. That's not your fault. But it is something that most chess players learn to do. My uncle can plan upwards of 15 moves ahead (which is paltry compared to other guys). It took me years to finally beat him because I had to learn to think a similar way.

That's how you play chess. It's not just random moves and hoping for the best. If you don't have a strategy, you're going to get your ass kicked by anyone who does.

Of course I know how to play 3 or 4 moves ahead. You couldn't expect to ever win if you don't. I'm talking about people that have the entire board memorized and solved already for the first entire set of 5 moves. That's a helluva lot of moves to remember. And it's impressive. But you have to be a helluva good player to make it beyond those 5 moves to actually GET to a middle game. Playing against these guys, you can already tell it's time to concede by that point.

durbnpoisn:These guys literally had the first 5 moves completely solved. As a result, no matter what I did, they already had the perfect counter move. It never even got to a point in a game where they needed to even think about the current state of the board. They already knew the next move.

It was very frustrating. It made me not play chess again for many years.

If you're playing like that, you are not even playing. You're just replaying stuff from memory.

durbnpoisn:Of course I know how to play 3 or 4 moves ahead. You couldn't expect to ever win if you don't. I'm talking about people that have the entire board memorized and solved already for the first entire set of 5 moves. That's a helluva lot of moves to remember. And it's impressive. But you have to be a helluva good player to make it beyond those 5 moves to actually GET to a middle game. Playing against these guys, you can already tell it's time to concede by that point.

Of course I am good at basketball. I know how to dribble the ball and shoot free throws. I can hit layups, too. How can you expect to win if you don't? I'm talking about playing against people who are almost 7 feet tall and start for D-1 college teams who can dunk and hit three-pointers. Those are really tough shots to make. And it's impressive. But you have to be a hell of a good player to keep up with those guys. They can easily run up the score on you before you even have a chance to make one basket, and it's already time to concede by that point.

durbnpoisn:scottydoesntknow: durbnpoisn: If you're playing like that, you are not even playing. You're just replaying stuff from memory.

That...doesn't even make sense.

You're upset that you can't plan a few moves ahead. That's not your fault. But it is something that most chess players learn to do. My uncle can plan upwards of 15 moves ahead (which is paltry compared to other guys). It took me years to finally beat him because I had to learn to think a similar way.

That's how you play chess. It's not just random moves and hoping for the best. If you don't have a strategy, you're going to get your ass kicked by anyone who does.

Of course I know how to play 3 or 4 moves ahead. You couldn't expect to ever win if you don't. I'm talking about people that have the entire board memorized and solved already for the first entire set of 5 moves. That's a helluva lot of moves to remember. And it's impressive. But you have to be a helluva good player to make it beyond those 5 moves to actually GET to a middle game. Playing against these guys, you can already tell it's time to concede by that point.

Well, yea. If you're playing against guys so skilled that they have every opening 5 move combination memorized (and you've done nothing to help yourself), you're gonna get your ass kicked. Especially when you've done nothing to know how to counter-act them. There is no guaranteed 5 move win every time, otherwise the person would use that every time. If someone tries to open with a Queen's Gambit, you need to know that the Albin Countergambit can sink it. Same goes for every other opening move and every other move in the game.

It sounds like you need to go down a notch on your competition and work your way back up. You're trying to take on NFL level players when you've barely made it to the starting roster for your intramural flag-football team.

durbnpoisn:Of course I know how to play 3 or 4 moves ahead. You couldn't expect to ever win if you don't. I'm talking about people that have the entire board memorized and solved already for the first entire set of 5 moves. That's a helluva lot of moves to remember. And it's impressive. But you have to be a helluva good player to make it beyond those 5 moves to actually GET to a middle game. Playing against these guys, you can already tell it's time to concede by that point.

They've studied the game. You don't know openings, or opening theory, or even what a gambit is. They don't have "the first entire set of 5 moves memorized and solved", but they do have a plan, and they have studied opening theory and several basic openings. And when you are spending time thinking, they are also thinking, while they wait on you. Chances are, you have a very small selection of decent moves available to you, and they are seeing those moves and have a plan for how they will counter each one of them. If you make one of those moves, they already have a plan. If you make another move, they'll do a very quick check to make sure they didn't miss something - but chances are, the reason they hadn't considered that move is because it's a bad move.

Those same people have also done a bunch of tactic puzzles, and studied end games, and just simply played a lot more games than you.

It sounds like you're a lot like me. I like to play. I've probably studied it a bit more than you, but I'm not a hot-shot chess player. If I set up a board in a bar or at a friends house, I have a very high chance of winning, because not many people play serious chess, and I can beat most of the ones that don't. If I go to a chess club, I'll lose almost every game, because at that point, I'm hanging around with serious chess players.

scottydoesntknow:durbnpoisn: scottydoesntknow: durbnpoisn: If you're playing like that, you are not even playing. You're just replaying stuff from memory.

That...doesn't even make sense.

You're upset that you can't plan a few moves ahead. That's not your fault. But it is something that most chess players learn to do. My uncle can plan upwards of 15 moves ahead (which is paltry compared to other guys). It took me years to finally beat him because I had to learn to think a similar way.

That's how you play chess. It's not just random moves and hoping for the best. If you don't have a strategy, you're going to get your ass kicked by anyone who does.

Of course I know how to play 3 or 4 moves ahead. You couldn't expect to ever win if you don't. I'm talking about people that have the entire board memorized and solved already for the first entire set of 5 moves. That's a helluva lot of moves to remember. And it's impressive. But you have to be a helluva good player to make it beyond those 5 moves to actually GET to a middle game. Playing against these guys, you can already tell it's time to concede by that point.

Well, yea. If you're playing against guys so skilled that they have every opening 5 move combination memorized (and you've done nothing to help yourself), you're gonna get your ass kicked. Especially when you've done nothing to know how to counter-act them. There is no guaranteed 5 move win every time, otherwise the person would use that every time. If someone tries to open with a Queen's Gambit, you need to know that the Albin Countergambit can sink it. Same goes for every other opening move and every other move in the game.

It sounds like you need to go down a notch on your competition and work your way back up. You're trying to take on NFL level players when you've barely made it to the starting roster for your intramural flag-football team.

I'll echo durbnpoisn's sentiment a bit, although this may be putting words into his/her mouth.

Some people get into chess for the creativity and thinking required, especially when you first start playing the game. But there's a wall you hit where it seems you will always lose to people who memorize (particularly openings). This is somewhat made worse nowadays with computers and chess databases. Some people (myself included) don't find that very fun to thought-provoking. We would like a game to be more than just a decision tree. Although yes, I realize there's more room for ingenuitiy in the middlegame.

Simply put, some like a game where you have to think, and don't view memorization as 'true' thinking.

B-Tensor:Some people get into chess for the creativity and thinking required, especially when you first start playing the game. But there's a wall you hit where it seems you will always lose to people who memorize (particularly openings). This is somewhat made worse nowadays with computers and chess databases. Some people (myself included) don't find that very fun to thought-provoking. We would like a game to be more than just a decision tree. Although yes, I realize there's more room for ingenuitiy in the middlegame.

Simply put, some like a game where you have to think, and don't view memorization as 'true' thinking.

But here's the thing: if you're getting beat by the same five moves (or a variation of them) every time, does that really count as 'true thinking' for you? Why should a highly-skilled chess player devote any more time than what it takes to beat you if you're not going to offer any challenge?

What you're asking is for skilled chess players to basically dumb down their play style so you can get more than a few moves into it. Why should they dumb it down to make it "thought-provoking" for you?

And damn near every game is a decision tree, the only thing that varies is how they dress it up.

scottydoesntknow:B-Tensor: Some people get into chess for the creativity and thinking required, especially when you first start playing the game. But there's a wall you hit where it seems you will always lose to people who memorize (particularly openings). This is somewhat made worse nowadays with computers and chess databases. Some people (myself included) don't find that very fun to thought-provoking. We would like a game to be more than just a decision tree. Although yes, I realize there's more room for ingenuitiy in the middlegame.

Simply put, some like a game where you have to think, and don't view memorization as 'true' thinking.

But here's the thing: if you're getting beat by the same five moves (or a variation of them) every time, does that really count as 'true thinking' for you? Why should a highly-skilled chess player devote any more time than what it takes to beat you if you're not going to offer any challenge?

What you're asking is for skilled chess players to basically dumb down their play style so you can get more than a few moves into it. Why should they dumb it down to make it "thought-provoking" for you?

And damn near every game is a decision tree, the only thing that varies is how they dress it up.

Nowhere have I asked skilled chess players to dumb down their playing style.

I guess philosophically games generally exist on a continuum of art<->science. Think tic-tac-toe vs. go. People get drawn to chess because it is part art, but then reality smacks them in the face and it turns out modern chess is much more 'scientific'. And they generally self-select out of the pool of chess enthusiasts.

Also note that some people (like myself) are not as competitive as others. Our goal is to stretch our own mind, not beat others. In that sense, memorization is a pointless exercise. Memorization and application is not as fun to us as creating something new.

Is tic-tac-toe fun? No, because it's solved. He goes here, I go there, etc. With computers and modern opening theory, it sometimes seems that way for chess, too, although it will likely be a very long time before it is 'solved' in the mathematical sense.

durbnpoisnOf course I know how to play 3 or 4 moves ahead. You couldn't expect to ever win if you don't. I'm talking about people that have the entire board memorized and solved already for the first entire set of 5 moves. That's a helluva lot of moves to remember. And it's impressive. But you have to be a helluva good player to make it beyond those 5 moves to actually GET to a middle game. Playing against these guys, you can already tell it's time to concede by that point.

Good players memorize some opening move sequences. They always have. Of course they also learn the less exact strategies for blending these opening moves into the later portions of the game. Oh well. I'm unwilling to spend the time and effort it takes, so that's on me.

I can make a similar complaint, with more validity IMO, about playing Scrabble. It's fun for me to a point, but being really good at it depends quite a bit on memorizing lists of obscure two and three letter words and that gets boring fast.

B-Tensor:Nowhere have I asked skilled chess players to dumb down their playing style.

I guess philosophically games generally exist on a continuum of art<->science. Think tic-tac-toe vs. go. People get drawn to chess because it is part art, but then reality smacks them in the face and it turns out modern chess is much more 'scientific'. And they generally self-select out of the pool of chess enthusiasts.

This reminds me of when Kasparov loudly proclaimed that a computer would never beat the best human chess player because chess requires human intuition. Then a computer beat him.

B-Tensor:Nowhere have I asked skilled chess players to dumb down their playing style.

I guess philosophically games generally exist on a continuum of art<->science. Think tic-tac-toe vs. go. People get drawn to chess because it is part art, but then reality smacks them in the face and it turns out modern chess is much more 'scientific'. And they generally self-select out of the pool of chess enthusiasts.

Also note that some people (like myself) are not as competitive as others. Our goal is to stretch our own mind, not beat others. In that sense, memorization is a pointless exercise. Memorization and application is not as fun to us as creating something new.

Is tic-tac-toe fun? No, because it's solved. He goes here, I go there, etc. With computers and modern opening theory, it sometimes seems that way for chess, too, although it will likely be a very long time before it is 'solved' in the mathematical sense.

I'll agree that it depends on the setting you're playing in. If you're playing with a friend, you would expect the friend to ease-up a bit and help you learn what you're doing. But if I don't know you and this is anything more than a friendly game, I will destroy you as quickly and as effortlessly as possible. I'm not going to string you along and give you time to actually come up with a viable strategy, I will do everything I can to end it quickly. If you can't combat a routine opening move set, then you will lose to a routine opening move set.

patrick767:B-Tensor:Nowhere have I asked skilled chess players to dumb down their playing style.

I guess philosophically games generally exist on a continuum of art<->science. Think tic-tac-toe vs. go. People get drawn to chess because it is part art, but then reality smacks them in the face and it turns out modern chess is much more 'scientific'. And they generally self-select out of the pool of chess enthusiasts.

This reminds me of when Kasparov loudly proclaimed that a computer would never beat the best human chess player because chess requires human intuition. Then a computer beat him.

scottydoesntknow:B-Tensor: Nowhere have I asked skilled chess players to dumb down their playing style.

I guess philosophically games generally exist on a continuum of art<->science. Think tic-tac-toe vs. go. People get drawn to chess because it is part art, but then reality smacks them in the face and it turns out modern chess is much more 'scientific'. And they generally self-select out of the pool of chess enthusiasts.

Also note that some people (like myself) are not as competitive as others. Our goal is to stretch our own mind, not beat others. In that sense, memorization is a pointless exercise. Memorization and application is not as fun to us as creating something new.

Is tic-tac-toe fun? No, because it's solved. He goes here, I go there, etc. With computers and modern opening theory, it sometimes seems that way for chess, too, although it will likely be a very long time before it is 'solved' in the mathematical sense.

I'll agree that it depends on the setting you're playing in. If you're playing with a friend, you would expect the friend to ease-up a bit and help you learn what you're doing. But if I don't know you and this is anything more than a friendly game, I will destroy you as quickly and as effortlessly as possible. I'm not going to string you along and give you time to actually come up with a viable strategy, I will do everything I can to end it quickly. If you can't combat a routine opening move set, then you will lose to a routine opening move set.

No argument here, and I wouldn't expect any less. I was just trying to explain why some people might be turned of by the game itself nowadays.

I'm personally at the crossroads as to whether I want to be a more serious chess player and dig into openings and more detailed theories, or to put my efforts towards other endeavors. So these ideas have been running through my head the last few days.

While I prefer starting with the standard fixed positions and opening book, people who want the creativity from the outset and not just the midgame will probably find a lot to like with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960.

Btw, regarding the whole thing about opening theory making chess more about memory than other "chessy" skills: until you're rated about 2000 FIDE or so opening theory isn't that demanding. Much better to just concentrate on understanding "simple" positions, something (ironically enough) Magnus Carlsen is arguably the game's greatest exponent of. For instance, his two wins in this match with Anand have been by outplaying his opponent is at first glance somewhat lifeless looking endgames and so far there's not really been a single game of "theoretical" significance (unless you count the first one which featured Anand surprising Magnus early on and forcing Carlsen to steer things towards a quick draw).

That said, above circa 2000 openings start to factor in more and more and yes, they can become a headache. Fischer random is an interesting solution but, alas, I can't stand the way castling is handled in it.